Can there be free will while God knows all things?


kstevens67
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

The idea that God's foreknowledge of something therefore makes that thing fated to happen and unchangeable, and that this somehow transgresses will or agency, is merely a manifestation of ignorance. And the idea that God makes choices, and that choices must necessarily imply some level of inability to distinguish future events, is pure nonsense.

I take foreknowledge to be the manifestation of perfect faith and not of perfect knowledge, and the purpose of our mortal probation ("to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them”) also. His perfect knowledge is realized when the fruits of His perfect faith are ripe (I see this as a teaching from Jacob 5). I think His giving us agency is done in the foreknowledge, or in the perfect faith, that eternal law will yield just fruits and that His Son will make that ripening process a merciful one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
16 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I'm not saying I'm more omniscient than God......

but I know every Real number.

You just think you know what you think you know when you don't know what you don't know which makes you know only the things you think you know and not the things you don't know.  You know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I'm not saying I'm more omniscient than God......

but I know every Real number.

1

I worked at Real for a few months. Anyone remember Real? They made what used to be the most popular personal computer media (well, audio) player. They are still alive and kicking (though not very hard) in downtown Seattle, in the Belltown area, about three or four blocks from the Space Needle. At least I assume they're still there. It's often sad to see how the mighty have fallen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This only applies to the teaching of creatio ex nihilo.

It is inapplicable to LDS teaching on creation.

Rob, I just assumed you are LDS.  I realize you didn't specify your religion on your profile.  Just to make sure, you're LDS, right?

Not really sure what you are even saying here so I cant reply. And yes, I am active LDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Thanks. I hope to. Same to you.

So you will dialogue only on conditions that I don't point out your ignorance or that your arguments are baseless? Those conditions don't allow for much of a dialogue.

Its very rude for someone to immediately spout off how stupid and ignorant someone is when clearly they do not even understand the argument being presented. So, until you get off your high horse and meet me on level ground then - good day to ya mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its very rude for someone to immediately spout off how stupid and ignorant someone is when clearly they do not even understand the argument being presented. So, until you get off your high horse and meet me on level ground then - good day to ya mate.

Couple of problems here:

  1. I didn't call you stupid. You're just making that up. I called you ignorant, which you are -- and which you will admit to, if you're being honest.
  2. How is it "clear" that I don't understand your argument? I believe I understand it perfectly well, or at least well enough to dialogue with you.

Tell you what. Let's do the following: I will present to you exactly what I believe your argument to be, or as close as I can reasonably make it. At the same time, you present to me exactly what you believe my argument to be, or as close as you can reasonably make it. Then you critique my presentation of your argument and tell what your argument really is, and I'll do the same for yours.

That way, we can see who really understands the other's argument better.

Deal?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Couple of problems here:

  1. I didn't call you stupid. You're just making that up. I called you ignorant, which you are -- and which you will admit to, if you're being honest.
  2. How is it "clear" that I don't understand your argument? I believe I understand it perfectly well, or at least well enough to dialogue with you.

Tell you what. Let's do the following: I will present to you exactly what I believe your argument to be, or as close as I can reasonably make it. At the same time, you present to me exactly what you believe my argument to be, or as close as you can reasonably make it. Then you critique my presentation of your argument and tell what your argument really is, and I'll do the same for yours.

That way, we can see who really understands the other's argument better.

Deal?

Go ahead and shoot away, explain what you think my argument is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There can be no such thing as "every real number" as the word "every" in this context defines a set amount. This is one area of number theory that is wrong.

I would clarify that "every" in this context defines an amount in an infinite set.

I'm not following. What is the area of number theory that's wrong? That Real numbers is a set? Real numbers is an infinite set? that "every" can be logically applied to a set? that "every" can be logically applied to an infinite set? that "every" can practically be applied to a set? that "every can be practically applied to an infinite set?

What am I missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not really sure what you are even saying here so I cant reply. And yes, I am active LDS.

Creatio ex nihilo.  The common Christian teaching that God created us out of nothing.  LDS do not believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

I would clarify that "every" in this context defines an amount in an infinite set.

I'm not following. What is the area of number theory that's wrong? That Real numbers is a set? Real numbers is an infinite set? that "every" can be logically applied to a set? that "every" can be logically applied to an infinite set? that "every" can practically be applied to a set? that "every can be practically applied to an infinite set?

What am I missing here?

More plinly- set theory in numbers is wrong. Cantors arguments with infinite sets is bad logic. Its sad that we have adopted much of these useless untestable theories and included it in math education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes...but what does that have anything to do with the topic? Please explain.

This below:

 

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I do not believe in a God that already knows every detail of the future because it would make God evil. Why? Because God would knowingly create certain individuals doomed eternally to perdition, their fate already sealed before they were ever created. Thus, God would have to knowingly create, raise and bring to pass those who are to be eternally damned.

That only applies if God created us out of nothing.  So he did not purposefully create us just to be damned.  Rather, he took our intelligences and gave us spirit bodies because he loves us.  He gave us the Plan of Salvation because he loves us.  We chose to go forward.  He didn't make us go forward.  So, the choice to be damned, if that is where we were headed, was ours to make.  In any case, to be damned is a progression.  It is our error to think that not progressing is better than damnation.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This below:

 

That only applies if God created us out of nothing.  So he did not purposefully create us just to be damned.  Rather, he took our intelligences and gave us spirit bodies because he loves us.  He gave us the Plan of Salvation because he loves us.  We chose to go forward.  He didn't make us go forward.  So, the choice to be damned, if that is where we were headed, was ours to make.  In any case, to be damned is a progression.  It is our error to think that not progressing is better than damnation.

 

God created our spirit bodies and placed or formed our intelligence into that existance. Thats the moment I am speaking of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

God created our spirit bodies and placed or formed our intelligence into that existance. Thats the moment I am speaking of

Yes.  God did not give us Spirit bodies so we can be damned.  God gave us Spirit bodies so we can have a choice.  In which sense, it is to be believed that having qualified for a spirit body is better than having none even as that body chooses to separate from God forever in its progression.

This was my Catholic paradox.  I cannot believe that being separated from God forever is better than having been nothing.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

More plinly- set theory in numbers is wrong. Cantors arguments with infinite sets is bad logic. Its sad that we have adopted much of these useless untestable theories and included it in math education.

I'm willing to back my statement up a bit. I know every Natural number. I think that's provable (I might know every Real number, but that's not a proof I'm willing to get into at the moment).

That being the case, I know more than your God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I'm willing to back my statement up a bit. I know every Natural number. I think that's provable (I might know every Real number, but that's not a proof I'm willing to get into at the moment).

That being the case, I know more than your God.

Can you number "all" of your real numbers you know? I know you cant and such a task is foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  God did not give us Spirit bodies so we can be damned.  God gave us Spirit bodies so we can have a choice.  In which sense, it is to be believed that having qualified for a spirit body is better than having none even as that body chooses to separate from God forever in its progression.

This was my Catholic paradox.  I cannot believe that being separated from God forever is better than having been nothing.

I think we are talking about different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

The limitation is time, not knowledge.

Its more proper or correct to say one can count endlessly yet never approach or never be any closer to "all". Numbers are just an abstract, a way to tag a value to something. But when we are talking about something endless, counting it or placing value on it as a whole doesnt make sense. Its just a wsy to quantify something. But we cannot quantify infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still working on my explanation of your beliefs. Hope you're doing the same for me. :)

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But we cannot quantify infinity.

Actually, we can. There is an infinite number of rational fractions between 0 and 1. There is also an infinite number of irrational decimals between 0 and 1. But the latter infinity is far, far larger than the former infinity. Since ordering such quantities is one way of quantifying them, we therefore can indeed "quantify infinity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Still working on my explanation of your beliefs. Hope you're doing the same for me. :)

Actually, we can. There is an infinite number of rational fractions between 0 and 1. There is also an infinite number of irrational decimals between 0 and 1. But the latter infinity is far, far larger than the former infinity. Since ordering such quantities is one way of quantifying them, we therefore can indeed "quantify infinity".

Its incorrect to assume value of one infinity having "more" than another infinity. This is where set theory has completely used bad logic to create a seeming paradox yet somehow is provable, or so Cantor thought with his diagonal argument. The whole paradigm is fundamentally flawed on so many levels I am ashamed to think my fellow man could be tricked so bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
  • pam featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share